By Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny) · Reviewed by Ls. Lê Thị Kim Dung & Ls. Nguyễn Văn Điệp
📖 Etymology Corner: "Exploit" — When Use Becomes Abuse
The word "exploit" carries a fascinating dual life. From the Old French esploit and Latin explicare (to unfold, to make use of), it originally meant simply "to make productive use of something." In a neutral sense, we still use it that way — exploiting a natural resource, exploiting an opportunity. But somewhere along the way, the word evolved a darker edge: to exploit a person is to use them for gain in a way that disregards their dignity, wellbeing, or consent. When we talk about exploiting a child's image, we are squarely in that darker territory — using something that belongs to an innocent person as raw material for someone else's profit. Decree 98/2026/NĐ-CP says: that kind of "productivity" now costs up to 50 million VND. 📵💸
🎬 In a Nutshell
Children's faces are not marketing assets. Their personal data is not a content strategy. Their hardship is not a fundraising prop.
These statements might seem obvious — but in the age of social media, charity-washing, and viral content, the line between raising awareness and exploiting vulnerability has been blurred by everyone from influencers to institutions.
Vietnam's new Decree 98/2026/NĐ-CP, issued 31 March 2026 and in force from 16 May 2026, sends a clear message: Article 24 of this Decree significantly raises the administrative penalties for exploiting children — including, most notably, a new top-tier fine of 40–50 million VND for exploiting children's images and personal data for harmful content or financial gain.
This is a 25% increase over the previous maximum fine under Decree 130/2021/NĐ-CP, which capped the same category at 40 million VND. Small in percentage terms. Very large in legal signal.
📋 Section 1: The Full Penalty Architecture — Five Tiers, One Clear Direction
Article 24 of Decree 98/2026 establishes a graduated penalty structure for child exploitation and abuse violations:
Tier 1 — Overloading children with household chores (20–30 million VND): Forcing a child to perform excessive household work — beyond their capacity, for too many hours, interfering with their study time, recreation, or healthy development — is now penalised at up to 30 million VND. This covers the household context: domestic labour that crosses from age-appropriate contribution into harmful exploitation.
Tier 2 — Organising or forcing children to beg (30–40 million VND): Any individual or organisation that coerces or organises a child to beg faces a fine in the 30–40 million VND range. This explicitly covers structured begging operations, not just parental pressure — the word "organise" captures the networked, commercial form of child begging that has been documented in several Vietnamese cities.
Tier 3 — Soliciting children as exploitation intermediaries (30–40 million VND): A cluster of related behaviours — leading, enticing, inciting, luring, pulling in, agitating, exploiting, or coercing a child to act as a middleman in exploitation transactions — all fall here. This is the "facilitator" category: using a child as the interface through which adult exploitation operates.
Tier 4 — Soliciting children to perform illegal labour (30–40 million VND): The same range of coercive behaviours (leading, enticing, inciting, etc.) applied to recruiting children into illegal work — work that violates child labour laws regardless of the specific type.
Tier 5 — Exploiting children's images and personal data (40–50 million VND): ← The headline provision This is the highest tier, and the one with the most relevance to the modern digital environment. It covers two related acts:
- Creating harmful content using a child's image or personal information — content that damages the child's physical or psychological development
- Using a child's image or personal information to generate profit for the perpetrator
Both are capped at 50 million VND and require that the act has not yet risen to the level of criminal liability (which would be handled under the Penal Code instead).
🔧 Section 2: The Remedial Measures — Paying Twice Is the Point
The fine alone is only part of the consequence. Decree 98 also mandates two categories of remedial measures:
Disgorgement — for all five violation categories: Every single dong of illegally obtained money or benefit derived from the violation must be repaid. There is no keeping any of it. Whether you profited 100,000 VND or 100 million VND from exploiting a child's image, the entire amount is clawed back. The fine is the punishment; the disgorgement is the restitution.
Medical cost repayment — for violations below criminal threshold: If the violation caused physical or psychological harm to the child — and the harm falls below the threshold for criminal prosecution — the violator is required to pay 100% of the child's medical treatment and care costs. You don't just get fined; you pay for the damage you caused.
This combination — fine + disgorgement + medical costs — means that the total financial consequence of a serious violation can significantly exceed the headline 50 million VND maximum. That is very much by design.
📊 Section 3: Old vs New — What Changed?
The previous framework under Decree 130/2021/NĐ-CP (Article 23) covered similar violations with a maximum fine of 20–40 million VND across the relevant behaviours. Under the new Decree 98/2026:
- The lower bands (household chores, begging, illegal labour) have been clarified and in some cases increased
- The headline violation — image and data exploitation — now commands a dedicated 40–50 million VND tier, with the ceiling raised 25% above the old maximum
- The disgorgement and medical cost remedies are explicitly codified, providing clearer enforcement tools
The shift is less about the magnitude of any single number and more about the structure: the new framework is more granular, more explicit, and harder to argue around.
🏠🚗 Real-Life Examples
Example 1 — The charity content creator: 📱 A person runs a social media page "documenting" children living in difficult circumstances. They film children without parental consent, post emotional videos, and monetise the channel through donations and advertising revenue. Under Article 24(3) of Decree 98, this is textbook image exploitation for profit — fine: up to 50 million VND + disgorgement of all revenue generated.
Example 2 — The begging network operator: 🏙️ An adult organises a group of children to beg at tourist areas in Ho Chi Minh City, collecting and keeping the proceeds. Under Article 24, the organiser faces a fine of 30–40 million VND + disgorgement of all money collected through the children's begging.
Example 3 — The factory labour recruiter: 🏭 An individual approaches families in rural areas and persuades or pressures teenage children (under legal working age) to come work at an unlicensed manufacturing facility. Under Article 24, this recruitment constitutes soliciting children to perform illegal labour — fine: 30–40 million VND.
Example 4 — The overworked household child: 🏠 A child is required to cook, clean, care for younger siblings, and perform other household tasks from early morning to late evening, leaving no time for homework or play, and affecting the child's health and development. The adult responsible faces a fine of 20–30 million VND under Article 24.
🤔 Did You Know?
Vietnam's Law on Children (2016) defines a child as any person under 16 years of age — a stricter threshold than the international standard of under 18 used in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (to which Vietnam is a signatory). However, Vietnamese law on child labour under the Labour Code 2019 uses 18 as the age of adulthood for most employment purposes. This means the definition of "child" for exploitation purposes may differ depending on which legal framework applies. When in doubt — especially in child labour contexts — the more protective standard applies. 📚
🌿 Law in Nature — The Parasite and the Host
The exploitation of children's images for profit mirrors the behaviour of brood parasites in the animal kingdom — species like the cuckoo that place their eggs in another bird's nest, letting the host parent raise the parasite's offspring while the parasite contributes nothing and gains everything. The exploiter uses the child (the "host") as the engine of their content, their fundraising, their attention economy — contributing nothing to the child's wellbeing and extracting everything of value. The child bears the cost — psychological, developmental, reputational — while the exploiter pockets the proceeds. Decree 98 is the legal equivalent of the host bird finally learning to recognise the foreign egg. 🐦🥚
💡 Tips for Individuals, Organisations, and Content Creators
If you run a charity or social welfare organisation:
- Any content featuring identifiable children requires documented consent from parents or legal guardians — and that consent must specifically cover the intended use (publication, fundraising, social media)
- Review your existing content library. If any videos or images of children were posted for fundraising purposes without proper consent documentation, act now — before 16 May 2026 passes
- "Raising awareness" is not a blanket exemption. The test is whether the content serves the child's interests or primarily serves your platform's growth
If you are a content creator:
- Children cannot consent to having their image used commercially — their parents/guardians can, but that consent must be specific and documented
- Monetising content that features children in distressing situations is a direct trigger for Article 24(3). Documenting hardship without explicit consent and profit-sharing with the child's family is exploitation, not journalism
- If a child appears incidentally in your content (background, public spaces), that's different from staging or featuring a child as the subject of poverty/hardship content
If you suspect a child is being exploited:
- Contact the Vietnam Child Protection Hotline: 111 (free, 24/7)
- Report to local authorities or the Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (Sở Lao động – Thương binh và Xã hội)
- Document what you observe but do not share or repost content that may itself constitute exploitation of the child's image
📝 Quick Quiz — Do You Know the Rules?
Question 1: From 16/05/2026, the maximum administrative fine for exploiting a child's image for profit is:
a) 20 million VND · b) 40 million VND · c) 50 million VND · d) 100 million VND
Question 2: In addition to the fine, what remedial measure applies to ALL five violation categories?
a) Community service · b) Licence revocation · c) Disgorgement of all illegally obtained profits · d) Public apology
Question 3: Compared to Decree 130/2021, the new ceiling for image exploitation violations has increased by approximately:
a) 100% · b) 10% · c) 25% · d) It decreased
Question 4: Which of the following is explicitly covered by the 40–50 million VND tier?
a) Forcing a child to do too much housework · b) Organising children to beg · c) Using a child's personal data or image to generate profit · d) Hiring a child for legal part-time work
🗣️ Call to Action
Have you seen content online that you suspect exploits children's images for fundraising or engagement? Are you a content creator or organisation trying to navigate the line between awareness-raising and exploitation? 💬
Drop your thoughts and questions in the comments — Ngọc Prinny reads every one. And share this post with anyone who creates content featuring children, runs a charity with a social media presence, or works in child protection. The law has changed. The fines are real. And children deserve better than being someone else's content strategy. 📤
🚨 Fun But Serious: A Brief Legal Disclaimer 🚨
Hey there, legal explorer! 🕵️♂️ Before you go...
- This article is like a map, not a legal advice session 🗺️ — it outlines the law, but your specific situation may involve facts that change the analysis
- For real-world child protection concerns or compliance questions, please consult a professional 🧙♂️ — may we suggest Thầy Điệp & Associates Law Firm
- Need document certification or notarisation? Thu Thiem Notary Office is ready 🖊️
- If a child is in immediate danger, contact authorities — not a lawyer 🚨
Full disclaimer: ngocprinny.blogspot.com/2024/08/disclaimer.html
#LegalInfo #delulu.vn #NotLegalAdvice #ConsultAPro #NgocPrinny
💝 Support Your Legal Ninja's Wellness Fund! 🍵
Enjoyed Ngọc Prinny's witty legal wisdom? Every article is powered by:
- Hours of deep-dive research 📚
- 10+ years of legal expertise ⚖️
- Creative storytelling that makes administrative decrees actually readable 📝
- And a truly heroic amount of herbal tea 🍵
If these posts have helped you understand your rights — or your responsibilities — consider buying me a green tea ☕ Your support keeps the knowledge flowing and this ninja ready for the next post! 🌱
If you're reading this at night — sweet dreams, and may every child be safe, protected, and well-rested tonight 🌙✨
If you're reading this in the morning — wishing you a purposeful day and the courage to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves ☀️🛡️
If you're reading this at lunch — enjoy every bite, and may the children around you always have enough to eat and a safe place to grow 🍱💚
Whenever you're reading this — may the law always stand between the vulnerable and those who would exploit them ⚖️🧒
Author: Nguyễn Lê Bảo Ngọc (Ngọc Prinny) | Reviewed by Ls. Lê Thị Kim Dung & Ls. Nguyễn Văn Điệp
Hashtags: #ChildProtection #VietnamLaw #Decree98 #NgocPrinny #BảoVệTrẻEm #ChildRights #LegalVibes #delulu_vn #VietnamRegulation2026 #DigitalEthics #ContentCreatorResponsibility #ChildSafety
